Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17   Go Down

Author Topic: Religious Freedom Act  (Read 58023 times)

Edward Starkie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Religious Freedom Act
« on: March 31, 2015, 03:03:54 PM »

Kevin, thanks for an interesting rantatorial. You note that it is not about photography, but if I were a wedding photographer in Indianapolis I would put up a sign right now that says, "This Business Does Not Discriminate." For those who do not discriminate there are two new markets: gay weddings, and the business of people who do not want to patronize businesses that discriminate. Combined, those two groups could mean a lot of business (one year of same-sex weddings in Massachusetts was quoted a generating $37 million in spending).

If businesses make non-discrimination declarations it will put pressure on those who do discriminate--loss of the business of both groups above. And young people, at least the ones who are my daughters age, don't seem to feel the same way as many of their elders and many are passionate about the rights of gay and transgender, and most weddings are marriages of those young people who probably do not favor discrimination and would avoid discriminatory businesses..

I think this law will backfire because of the unintended consequences brought on by cluelessness. Don't feel bad about the great state of Indiana--every state goes through periods of accelerated legislative production of unintended consequences. It even happens at the Federal level (gasp!).
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10339
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2015, 03:40:10 PM »

Thanks god voting is (still) secret, so that people can express their opinion freely, albeit indirectly, without the fear of losing their jobs, livelihoods, careers, or being bullied, shamed, and terrorized in social and other media.

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1996
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2015, 04:09:06 PM »

Kevin, thanks for an interesting rantatorial. You note that it is not about photography, but if I were a wedding photographer in Indianapolis I would put up a sign right now that says, "This Business Does Not Discriminate." For those who do not discriminate there are two new markets: gay weddings, and the business of people who do not want to patronize businesses that discriminate. Combined, those two groups could mean a lot of business (one year of same-sex weddings in Massachusetts was quoted a generating $37 million in spending).

If businesses make non-discrimination declarations it will put pressure on those who do discriminate--loss of the business of both groups above. And young people, at least the ones who are my daughters age, don't seem to feel the same way as many of their elders and many are passionate about the rights of gay and transgender, and most weddings are marriages of those young people who probably do not favor discrimination and would avoid discriminatory businesses..

I think this law will backfire because of the unintended consequences brought on by cluelessness. Don't feel bad about the great state of Indiana--every state goes through periods of accelerated legislative production of unintended consequences. It even happens at the Federal level (gasp!).

but what is the problem ? homosexual photogs will make more money and homophobic ones lose, while both sides can exercise their freedom to do their business as they wish without gov't saying how - I think the state of Indiana has to be congratulated  :) ...

the case with Pledge Of Allegiance In Arabic is way more serious, because this was not a private enterprise but a state school
Logged

Rajan Parrikar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1678
    • Rajan Parrikar
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2015, 05:42:51 PM »

Kevin asks: "What Id like to know is what religion actually would dictate a right to discriminate against anyone?"

There is at least one. It has some nasty prescriptions for me, a kaffir.

There was also another 'religion' (in quotes because it isn't really a religion as understood in the West) that at certain times in history discriminated against certain people deemed "untouchables."
« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 05:49:28 PM by Rajan Parrikar »
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2015, 06:02:27 PM »

The photography and florists example is actually quite silly. It makes the whole issue seem trivial.

There are other businesses which are not awash in competition, and which offer substantially more important services. If the only dentist, doctor, grocery store, in your small town declines to serve you because you are gay (or otherwise in a recognizable but unprotected category. Veterans? Gun owners? Photographers? People who dye their hair?), you could have a much more substantial problem.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2093
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2015, 06:48:37 PM »

Kevin asks: "What Id like to know is what religion actually would dictate a right to discriminate against anyone?"

There is at least one. It has some nasty prescriptions for me, a kaffir.

There was also another 'religion' (in quotes because it isn't really a religion as understood in the West) that at certain times in history discriminated against certain people deemed "untouchables."

No need to stop with those examples. Religions are all about inclusion and, just as important, exclusion. In group vs. Out group.

Two general observations on the subject:

1) IMO the best way to further denigrate the value of the Christian religion in the US is to further entangle it with the state.

2) IMO cloaking bigotry in religious garb is chickenshit & weak. Own your beliefs. And if you can't deal with criticism and even ridicule for doing so, maybe reconsider what & why you believe.

Props to Kevin for posting his rant.

-Dave-
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2117
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2015, 07:40:39 PM »

The state of Indiana has made the world news headlines in Great Britain and Europe (true). In other news, Putin has "friended" Pence. (satire) The linked New Yorker satire is likely close to the mark, by the way.

Arkansas is poised to follow IN down the drain. Then again, AR hasn't really overcome the Central High School desegregation of 57 years ago. If you are not from AR, the one image that you are guaranteed to know about AR are the photos of "screaming mobs of white people held back by 101st Airborne US Army soldiers there to protect nine black high school students". Now that businesses off-shore their low-skill labor, no nationally oriented businesses are going to want to locate in AR, because ambitious educated or highly skilled people don't want to move there. I didn't bother to look at a faculty position at the medical school there despite some recruitment by the then-chair - no point, didn't want to live in Little Rock. The number one tourist attraction is the extensive national forests and rivers, and state parks, none of which generate a heck of a lot of income, because the tourists pay zero to 10 bucks to 80 bucks (all-parks-year-long-pass) to the US government for admission and camping, maybe 10 bucks a night for state park electrified trailer campsite .
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2117
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2015, 07:48:51 PM »

Vendors in Indianapolis are apparently buying up and posting all the rainbow stickers they can find. Smart business move.

 I do know that seeing prominently displayed Christian paraphernalia in store windows or on store vans makes me alert for bad deals and the need to comparison shop. There have been enough examples of people wearing their religion on their sleeves and then fleecing their co-religionists who are naive enough to think that public piety equals honesty.
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1996
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2015, 10:16:01 PM »

Now that businesses off-shore their low-skill labor, no nationally oriented businesses are going to want to locate in AR

WalMart is still there... in Bentonville, AR
Logged

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 924
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2015, 10:33:14 PM »

Yo, Kevin. Come on over to Illinois if you want some real cronyism.
Logged
~ CB

telyt

  • Guest
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2015, 10:34:07 PM »

Agree with much if not all of the above.  In a few instances (displaying rainbow stickers vs. religious piety for example) the market will sort out the schmucks, but there are too many ways the market can fail especially in smaller communities.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2015, 12:07:19 AM »

Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10339
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2015, 02:27:43 AM »

Agree with much if not all of the above.  In a few instances (displaying rainbow stickers vs. religious piety for example) the market will sort out the schmucks, but there are too many ways the market can fail especially in smaller communities.

If it is ok to call one side of the debate "schmucks," would it be ok to call the other side pervs or freaks?

dzevchek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
    • My Flickr page:
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2015, 03:05:34 AM »

Luminous Landscape has always been about photography, not politics.  Even the rants.

This rantatorial has no place here.

Best Regards,
Don Z.
Logged

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2681
    • flickr page
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2015, 05:16:25 AM »

Here in the UK, it's illegal in most instances, to discriminate on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, disability, race, etc. What is more, if you are offering a service to the public (including selling wedding cakes or offering wedding photography), you are not allowed to discriminate, whatever your personal beliefs/feelings. If you won't photograph a gay wedding, don't be a wedding photographer, because if you're asked & refuse because they're gay, you risk prosecution.

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
    • http://www.twigwater.com
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2015, 08:06:27 AM »

I think it's time to start throwing the odd christian to the lions as a reminder when they were the target...  ;)  ;D

Logged
www.twigwater.com My fly fishing blog.

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2645
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #16 on: April 01, 2015, 08:24:28 AM »

BH Photo in New York City is owned and run by orthodox Jews whose religion does not allow them to eat pork, shrimp, etc. Would it be OK for them to turn away any customer who does? I see the Indiana law the same way - freedom of religion means you are free to practice YOUR religion the way YOU see fit. It does not mean you are free to discriminate against people who practice THEIR religion differently than you do.

North Carolina is considering a similar law and I am glad to say that the furor over Indiana has at least some of the bill's sponsors saying "more study is needed."
Logged
Peter
"Photographic technique should always be a means to an end and never the end itself."

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2645
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #17 on: April 01, 2015, 08:27:22 AM »

I should also say that I too think the rantatorials should stick to photography. As much as I respect Michael and Kevin, their political opinions - whether I agree or not - are of precisely zero interest.
Logged
Peter
"Photographic technique should always be a means to an end and never the end itself."

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2015, 08:29:58 AM »

Luminous Landscape has always been about photography, not politics.  Even the rants.

This rantatorial has no place here.

Best Regards,
Don Z.


I disagree.

Firstly, Kevin is now the publisher here, and is free to write what he sees fit. And though not a primary consequence of this stupid law (remember when America was the champion of all forms of freedom, and enshrined them in its constitution?) it has huge consequences for business, and for many photographers this is a business.

This highly discriminatory law is simply an end-run around gays and other visible minorities, and allows those preaching a perverted form of religiosity to act in a legally- sanctioned bigoted manner.

What's next. Jews? Blacks? Hispantics?

There are no "official" religions in the U.S. Indeed its outlawed in the constitution. Therefore anyone who wants to say that providing service to Jews is against their religion now has the legal right to do so in Indiana, and I understand eventually in as many as more than half the U.S. states.

No. This is a dumb, even an evil law being used by the the anti-gay marriage crowd to foster their particular form of hatred on everyone else. It is making the USA a sad and despised country among those of us who value both freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

In my opinion Kevin should be shouting this from the rooftops, not just the pages of this site.

As someone who has known Kevin for many years I can say that his bona fides are unquestionable. In many political debates I'm on the left and he's on the right, but in this instances there is no division between us. The Indiana law and its clones in other states are simply wrong-headed at best, and frankly nakedly homophobic. They offer a chance for legally supported racial, sexual and religious intolerance.

Michael
Logged

jfirneno

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2015, 09:01:13 AM »

Yeah and let's teach those muslin butcher shops that they can't get away with not serving me that ham on rye that I like so much.  When they told me it was against their beliefs I felt so violated that I called up Eric Holder and he said he'd get right on it.  But when he told me that he could only hold kosher butchers accountable but not muslim (you know they've really suffered too much lately) I relived the horror of my micro-assault all over again.  Yeah, there's way too much freedom going on around us today.  Maybe we can cancel the bill of rights!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17   Go Up